价值观是经济利益的派生物？不希望先生进入到这个观点上。
人之初，性本善！
上帝在创造人类时是先有自然界给人类，让第一个人来到地球后能在自然界中生存，这第一个人的到来会存在与他人经济利益之争了吗？
从第一个人的到来，到人类社会的第一对男女结合时，他们就开始以经济利益争夺而才结合的吗？
当这第一对男女生下第一个孩子时，地球存在第三个人时，这三个人是因经济利益之争而得以生存在发展扩大，还是因这第一对男女对其孩子的爱和无私给与无私奉献而使孩子得以成长的呢？使人类得以扩大的呢？
在人类的整个历史过程社会中，存在利他和利己，存在利他利已经济利益之争，是人的价值观激活和产生了经济利益？还是经济利益下产生了人的价值观？还是两者共同促进和作用下使人类社会难以理解？被人利用下而丧失人的本性？

45天因认为自己做得不好退出，约翰逊又可能回归，这将体现出英国人巨大的纠错能力，和拥有“妥协”这种美德的无比优越性。 ​​​​

他们还有一个非常明智的政坛潜规则，那就是得到了极高荣誉的政客都必须下台，越是优秀就越是不可以连任，否则后面四年就会出现一句顶一万句的权力，就可能导致人祸。

当45天辞职，又可能是约翰逊回归。
这种纠错并非有一个超然权力之上的人的意志，也非完全依靠目前既有的政治体制，而是体制+文化+社会+政治家个人素养的综合产物。这也是这个国家自大宪章之后总能在关键时刻做出正确选择的原因。这是人类的财富，这种民主自由平等协商是个人价值观和社会价值观的表现，使英国这个人口和土地小国成为影响和引领着人类社会的价值观。英国而由此得到了国家利益和经济利益。

又可以吹民主无效率论。
毒才超有效率，做错事。
这可以看出英的制度其实是集体议事制。就算首相也不能独揽大权，
只要集体认为他不适合，就可以另选更适合的裆员去领导团体执行国策。
丘吉尔是战时最适合的领袖，战后重建英国人就另选更适合的首相了。
不是新官上任三把火，而是继续领导执行共识的政策。
议会辩论都是公开给人民参观的，
当然世上最完美的议会的就像朝鲜，没有辩论，完全拥护，热烈鼓掌，

纠错个毛，哈哈哈，一堆烂蒜扒拉来扒拉去而已。

不是民主无效率，而是民主代替不了科学，科学才是最重要的。

听说过“多数人暴政”这词么？这词来源就是”论美国民主”，什么头皮法案、黑奴法典，让你再有效
===========================================

你说的头皮法案又是一个编造的谎言，看来你是离不开谎言啦。

1705年还没有丑国吧。

这样重要的历史事件为什么维基百科查不到
你说的头皮法案又是一个编造的谎言

---------------------

在一千年内你所有祖先都是人类这样重要的历史事件为什么维基百科查不到？

“黑奴法典”是一个系列，从17世纪末在弗吉尼亚开始后形成了各种法条，最终甚至写入了宪法。

在一千年内你所有祖先都是人类这样重要的历史事件为什么维基百科查不到？所以你是人（后代）看来是谎言了，让你再“有效”
=============================

能查到哦，维基百科中输入“人类起源”，可以很轻易地查到有关内容哦。北美殖民地时期的重要历史事件也都能查到哦。丑国历届ZF制定的所有法案（即使已废除）都可以轻易查到哦。

“黑奴法典”是一个系列，从1705年法典化最终发展到写入了宪法。
==============================

“黑奴法典”我在维基百科中查到了，确实存在但不属于宪法内容哦。但查不到“头皮法案”。说说看，你的历史资料从哪里来的？你主张你举证哦。

我说的是“你”，呵呵

随便举个例子：1787宪法 4章2条：No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

并根据此条衍生了之后的 Fugitive Slave Act

你看wiki 没告诉你 黑奴法典包括 1787宪法中的一些法条，所以你就认为是说谎了，哈哈

Minnesota Bounties On Dakota Men During The U.S.-Dakota War

Colette Routel, Mitchell Hamline School of LawFollow
Document Type
Article

Publication Date
2013

Publication Information
40 William Mitchell Law Review 1 (2013)

Abstract
The U.S.-Dakota War was one of the formative events in Minnesota history, and despite the passage of time, it still stirs up powerful emotions among descendants of the Dakota and white settlers who experienced this tragedy. Hundreds of people lost their lives in just over a month of fighting in 1862. By the time the year was over, thirty-eight Dakota men had been hanged in the largest mass execution in United States history. Not long afterwards, the United States abrogated its treaties with the Dakota, confiscated their reservations along the Minnesota River, and forced most of the Dakota to remove westward.

While dozens of books and articles have been written about these events, scholars have largely ignored an important legal development that occurred in Minnesota during the following summer. The Minnesota Adjutant General, at the direction of Minnesota Governors Alexander Ramsey and Henry Swift, issued a series of orders offering rewards for the killing of Dakota men found within the State. The first order authorized the creation of a corps of volunteer scouts that would scour the "Big Woods" in search of Dakota men. They were to be paid not only a daily wage, but an additional $25 for each scalp they were able to provide the Adjutant General's Office. Subsequent orders permitted individual citizens who were not part of the volunteer corps to claim up to $200 for proof that they had killed a Dakota. These bounty orders remained in effect until at least 1868, when their constitutionality was finally questioned by the Minnesota Supreme Court in State v. Gut.

Minnesota was not the only state that placed a bounty on their Indian inhabitants. Around the same time, a bounty system was enacted by the Territory of Arizona, and one was also implemented by private citizens and local governments within the State of California. Like the bounty system in Minnesota, these programs were creatures of state and territorial law, but they were implicitly and explicitly approved by the federal government. In fact, they could be viewed as part of a much broader extermination program that was at the heart of federal Indian policy during this time period.

This article uses primary historical sources to describe the events leading up to the enactment of a bounty system in Minnesota, its creation, and subsequent on-the-ground implementation. In an attempt to avoid the pitfalls of "presentism," the legality of this bounty system is analyzed according to the laws in effect in 1863, when it was created. This article concludes that the Minnesota bounty system was illegal from its inception, as it was contrary not only the international law of war, but also the Lieber Code, which was issued by the U.S. Secretary of War in April 1863, and used to govern the conduct of Union soldiers during the ongoing Civil War.

Repository Citation
Routel, Colette, "Minnesota Bounties On Dakota Men During The U.S.-Dakota War" (2013). Faculty Scholarship. 260.
https://open.mitchellhamline.edu/facsch/260

上述内容里明确了1862年明尼苏达州“剥一个Dakota（印第安人）头皮士兵奖25刀，一般人奖200刀”，类似的赏金制度在亚利桑那、加利福尼亚等州的地方政府也有颁发，这些都是地区民选议员们制定的法律产物。头皮法案这种常识性的问题，这就像你的老祖宗也是人一样，wiki不告诉你所以你就认为是在说谎

我说的是“你”，呵呵
=============

我的家族历史上没有出过什么名人，自然查不到啊。如果你的家族曾经显赫一时，肯定能查到，不信你试试。

你查不到等不等于说谎啊？

上述内容里明确了1862年明尼苏达州“剥一个Dakota（印第安人）头皮士兵奖25刀，一般人奖200刀”，类似的赏金制度在亚利桑那、加利福尼亚等州的地方政府也有颁发，这些都是地区民选议员们制定的法律产物。头皮法案这种常识性的问题，这就像你的老祖宗也是人一样，wiki不告诉你所以你就认为是在说谎
=============================

这是一篇美国学者写的文章，文章大意说的是1862年明尼苏达州白人与达科塔印第安人之间的战争期间，达科塔人潜伏在森林中袭击白人，明尼苏达副官在州长的授意下发布奖励命令：志愿兵团在森林中搜寻达科塔人，每沙司一名达科塔人，除工资外再奖励25美元，可以用投疲证明，普通人如果能证明沙司了一名达科塔人，最多可奖励200美元。这些赏金命令一直有效到1868年，直到明尼苏达州最高法院在州诉古特案中最终质疑它们是否符合宪法才终止。

即使文章中的叙述都是事实，这些赏金命令也不能称为《头皮法案》吧，这些命令的目的是鼓励大家去沙敌，这就是战争行为，而且是交战双方都有的行为，波投疲其实是印第安人的风俗习惯，类似中国古代取敌人首级。这些命令后来不是被最高法院叫停了吗，说明这在当时的丑国就是一种违法行为。这些赏金命令从来就没有写入过丑国的法律中，又怎么能称为《头皮法案》。

你查不到等不等于说谎啊？
================

这样著名的法案怎么可能查不到，查不到的原因只有一种可能，根本不存在。

法案是指有提案权的主体向有立法权的国家机关所提出的有关制定、修改和废止规范性法律文件的建议，包括法律案、行政法规案、地方性法规案、规章案等。关于美国各自治州的头皮赏金制度，称为法案没有不妥之处。
      While the Minnesota Legislature played no role in the creation of the bounty system, it did issue one reward of its own accord.As discussed in Part II.B above, the Lamsons had not received any monetary reward for killing Taoyateduta. Governor Swift believed this to be unjust, and in his annual message to the Minnesota Legislature in 1864, he called upon that body to rectify this situation. 230 On January 13, 1864, Governor Stephen Miller, in his inaugural address to the Minnesota Legislature, also made clear his belief that Nathan and Chauncey Lamson should be rewarded for their “meritorious service,” suggesting that “such provision be made for them, as may comport with the dignity of the State.” 231

     A bill was drafted almost immediately by Representative Henry Hill, 232 and it was read in the Minnesota House of Representatives for the first time on January 21, 1864. 233 As originally introduced, the bill would have authorized a $1500 payment to the Lamsons for killing Taoyateduta, of which $1000 was to go to Nathan Lamson and $500 to Chauncey Lamson. 234 The House, however, reduced the proposed payments to $500 and $300 respectively, 235 and with this alteration, the bill passed that chamber by a vote of twenty-four for and fourteen against. 236

233. See 1864 JOURNAL OF THE MINN. HOUSE, supra note 229, at 49; see also id., at 55, 59, 62 (tracking history of the bill from the Committee on Federal Relations to the Committee of the Whole).

234. H.F. 25, 6th Leg. (Minn. 1864).

235. Id. (markups directly on bill).

236. 1864 JOURNAL OF THE MINN. HOUSE, supra note 229, at 74–75.


上面大意就是印第安人Taoyateduta（正在森林里采浆果）被Lamsons夫妇干掉割了头皮来拿赏金，州议员Henry Hill起草了法案，最终在州众议院获得通过，不过奖励缩水成235刀奖给Lamsons夫妇。

这样著名的法案怎么可能查不到，查不到的原因只有一种可能，根本不存在。=====================
查不到至少还有种可能：你水平的关系，怎么变成“只”有一种可能了

In 1864, John Goodwin, the federally appointed Territorial Governor of Arizona, successfully pushed the Arizona Legislature to pass a resolution endorsing the extermination of Apaches. KATHLEEN P. CHAMBERLAIN, VICTORIO:APACHE WARRIOR AND CHIEF 107 (2007). The legislature ultimately offered a “reward for every Apache brought in, dead or alive,” and the system was described as “the same sort of bounty that was used to be offered for wolf scalps.” Id.

1864年亚利桑那州议会也通过了州长提出的“头皮法案”

1864年亚利桑那州议会也通过了州长提出的“头皮法案”
==========================

你这是维基百科查到的内容吗？你这些内容不就是你前面引用的那篇文章中后边没显示的内容吗？还想冒充维基百科？欺负老百姓不懂英文？

你引用的文章既不是著名学者，也不是权威文献，参考价值不高，你以为外国人写的文章都是真实可信的吗？而且文章中也没有“头皮法案”的提法，你把文章作者的原文都篡改了。你说说哪个词是“头皮法案”？

难怪你整天这个不存在那个不存在，原来是英文差给你关键字  KATHLEEN P. CHAMBERLAIN, VICTORIO:APACHE WARRIOR AND CHIEF 107 (2007).你也看不懂不会查啊，行了一边娱乐去吧。

你引用的文章既不是著名学者，也不是权威文献，参考价值不高

------------------------------

人家好歹是美国排名比较靠前的公立大学的历史系教授，再怎么样也总比你这整天只会说“wiki我查不到”的高人靠谱吧

西方国家曾经大肆贩奴，贩毒，贩军火，不把其他人种当人看，这都是铁的事实，有什么可争论的呢？

感谢先生的热情到来！

感谢先生的热情到来！

信仰和主义。这本身就带上有色眼镜
－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－－
正相反，本人是抛开了有色眼镜之后去理解人类社会的价值观，人类最大的信仰是上帝让你到来，在你到来和长大后，你可以努力求名求利，也可以自由自在中满足，去追求各式的自我和信仰，而后上帝都会宽容中让你回去，在这里让人类深层的价值观是从生命到宿命的变化，在个人的一生中存在的经济利益之争只是一个过渡而已，生不带来，死不带去，也由此产生的人类社会的剩余产品，产生了个人对剩余产品的保存需要分配需要各种需要之争，但个人最后却回归宿命，由生命回归宿命的价值观永恒主宰着人类和自然。

人家好歹是美国排名比较靠前的公立大学的历史系教授，再怎么样也总比你这整天只会说“wiki我查不到”的高人靠谱吧
================

前面说过，就算这些行为都是事实，也是战争行为，而且那些命令都是非法的，你引用的文章中也说了，这些赏金制度违反了丑国宪法，最高法院最后也做出了纠正。丑国历史上确实犯过很多错误，独立很多年后都还保留着合法的黑奴制度等等。